The accompanying flowchart identifies the study process, click for detailed information:
The alternative evaluation process consists of a two-phase screening process. The first phase, Eliminate Unrealistic Alternatives, eliminates alternatives that clearly do not meet the goals and objectives of the study. The second phase, Comparative Screening Analysis, compares the relative impacts and benefits of the alternatives based on how effectively they meet evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria is developed early in the study with stakeholder and affected agency input and is based on study goals and objectives. Based on stakeholder and affected agency input and previous studies, initial lists of strategies and alternate routes were developed. The strategies and alternate routes include options that have been evaluated in previous studies, tried in other jurisdictions, and new strategies and alignments.
Eliminate Unrealistic Alternatives
The unrealistic screening eliminates strategies and alternate routes that clearly do not address the needs of the study. Alternatives that are screened out at this level are eliminated from further consideration because they have no real chance of being implemented.
The following criteria was used to eliminate unrealistic non-route based strategies:
The following criteria was used to eliminate unrealistic route based alternatives:
The evaluation is qualitative to this point and was conducted with input from trucking industry representatives to ensure that the appropriate strategies are carried to the next level. The screening analyses for both the alternate routes and non-route based strategies were presented to the various study committees for input and concurrence.
Comparative Screening Analysis
The remaining strategies and alternate routes, following the unrealistic screening, have been refined to provide the necessary detail to complete the comparative screening analysis.
The comparative screening analysis was conducted to develop the recommended strategies and alternate routes that best meet the study goals and objectives. The comparative analysis uses evaluation criteria that are currently being finalized as the basis for comparison.
Detailed information was collected from each strategy and alternate route to develop the necessary data to use in the comparative analysis. The comparative screening analysis is quantitative in nature and evaluates relative benefits and impacts of the strategies and alternatives.
The comparative screening was conducted with input from the study committees and the evaluation for both the alternate routes and non-route based strategies will be presented to the various study committees for input and concurrence for the final recommendations.
|
|||||
|
|||||